In 1997, Mohammed T. Mehdi, the head of the Arab-American Committee and the National Council on Islamic Affairs, lobbied to have a crescent and star put up at the World Trade Center during the holiday season. His wish was granted, despite the fact that he had been an adviser to Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman also known as the Blind Sheikh.

In the name of diversity and political correctness, an adviser to the religious leader behind the World Trade Center bombing, was allowed to plant an Islamic symbol of conquest in the very place that had been bombed.

Long before the Ground Zero Mosque was even a twinkle in the eye of aviolent ex-waiter and a slumlord Imam, the World Trade Center allowed Mohammed T. Mehdi to bully it into flying the symbol of Islam.

By 1997, Mohammed T. Mehdi had become an unambiguously ugly public figure. He had been fired by Mayor Dinkins in 1992 for anti-Semitic remarks. The year before he had proclaimed that, “Millions of Arabs believe Saddam stands tall having defied Western colonialism“.

In 1995, the US Attorney’s Office in New York had listed Mehdi as anunindicted co-conspirator in the trial of Sheikh Rahman. Mehdi had already published a book titled “Kennedy and Sirhan: Why?”, which contended that Robert Kennedy’s assassin had been acting in self-defense.

Because of Mehdi’s role in actively working on behalf of the Sheikh behind the wave of terrorism that included the original attack on the World Trade Center, turning down his request should have been a no-brainer. Instead in the winter of 1997 there was an Islamic star and crescent at the World Trade Center. And another one at the park in front of the White House.

Four years before the September 11 attacks; both targets had already been marked.

The previous year had marked the first annual Ramadan dinner at the State Department, integrating the Islamic celebration into the Clinton Administration’s schedule of events. Bill Clinton had not visited the World Trade Center after the bombing, but he did make time for Ramadan.

A month after 9/11, Bush went Clinton one better when he became the first president to host a Ramadan dinner at the White House. Many of the Muslim ambassadors at the event were representing countries that helped finance Al Qaeda. Little more than a month after September 11, the President of the United States sat down to break bread with the money men behind the attacks.

The Star and Crescent flying at the World Trade Center did not prevent it from being targeted in a second greater attack four years later. Nor did the Ramadan dinners keep the plane headed for the White House at bay. It took the self-sacrifice of its American passengers to do that. Instead every gesture of appeasement only seemed to make it worse.

I got tired of watching the ‘experts’ and commentators on TV hunt for the ‘radicalization’ of the Tsarnaev brothers. These began to sound more like a chiwawa’s continual bark rather than an honest view of the problem at hand.

Americans’ views are being molded to think that the two brothers got transformed from peace-loving Muslims to fanatic, bomb-throwing radicals by a slow process. So the hunt is on, not to find the real culprits behind terrorism but to find clues of a radicalization process.

But the truth is that this ‘radicalization process’ is a myth coined by Americans who were gradually transformed by Muslim apologists to believe in it. Both Anwar Al-Awlaki and Feiz Muhammad (the latter was who inspired the Tsarnaevs) also stated that “Islam was hijacked by a few” to later support terrorism out in the open.

Incidentally, in 2010, Feiz Muhammad called for the murder of Dutch politician Geert Wilders:

The problem with understanding the whole Islamic terrorism phenomenon is not the fault of the Muslim terrorists who for years have explained that they want us to abandon secularism for Sharia. Rather, it is the fault of Islamic terrorist sympathizers who have slowly transformed Americans into believing that a radicalization process exists and that “Islam was hijacked by a few radical elements”.

Indeed, if our terrorism policy-makers understand the radicalization phenomenon, then how can one explain the State Department and how none other than the radicals infiltrated it? In order to “engage the Moderate Muslim world” they commissioned Imam Sheikh Feisal Abdul Rauf, the ‘radical’ behind the Ground Zero Mosque who got in because he was “nice” and only moderated his tone in English.

We, not the State Department, were the first to translate – at least publicly – his doublespeak from popular Arab media where Rauf wrote an article in Jordan’s Al-Ghad, in which he clearly supported Hezbollah and Hamas, adding that they represented “the trend towards Islamic law and justice” because according to Rauf “secularism had failed to deliver what the Muslim wants, which is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Then, regarding the U.S., he discussed how Muslims must lobby the west to make it non-secular and “Sharia Compliant”?

If westerners seek honest answers into ‘radicalization’, they must first examine the process of Islamic Da’wa or ‘missionary work’. It is here where one can rarely find the radical statements required to label the movement ‘radical’. It’s the process where the Da’wa proponent plays his role as ‘good-cop’ while the bad-cop makes the sinister and quick transformation of Muslims into Jihadists fanatics.

The face of 2010’s controversy over a proposed mega-mosque and community center near Ground Zero in Manhattan has been accused of defrauding donors in a lawsuit filed in New York state court this week.

Feisal Abdul Rauf and his wife Daisy Khan bought “a luxury sports car, personal real estate” and traveled on money that was donated for specific projects at Rauf’s Cordoba Initiative and the American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA), the lawsuit says. It was filed by Robert Leslie Deak, whose family foundation donated $167,000 to Rauf’s “Shariah Index” project from 2006-08. The money was supposed to be used for Islamic scholars to work to reduce anti-Muslim sentiment.

In addition, the lawsuit claims, Rauf failed to report $3 million in donations from the Malaysian government on his non-profits’ tax forms and that Rauf also used the money on personal spending. The lawsuit seeks $5 million in punitive damages.

Congratulations have to go to Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, better known as the Ground Zero Imam, for his splendid performance on Sean Hannity’s May 23 evening interview. Whether Hannity knew it or not, Imam Feisal used his audience to deliver a well-thought out ‘taqiyyah’ act where he apologizes profusely, as a “moderate” Muslim, for his various “insensitive” remarks about Americans being accessories to 9/11, their role in spilling more blood than Al Queda, and for not condemning Hamas, Hezbollah and Muslim Brotherhood as terrorist groups.

Hannity seemed to be really taken aback, actually disarmed by the Imam’s confession of regret. After all, Hannity has been on the case of this Imam since the controversy of the Park51 (originally Cordoba House) mosque project near Ground Zero. Hannity even praised him for having the courage to come on his show.

No one on the Imam’s team doubted that Hannity would be confrontational and the Imam was ready to play right into it. This was the perfect opportunity for the American public to see and hear how the Muslim scholars’ teachings of ‘taqiyya’ really work when a Muslim is cornered and needs to gain the trust of non-believers to further his agenda.

‘Taqiyya,’ for those of you new to this Islamic word, is about lying to pave the way to defeat the Infidel. But, when Imam Feisal spoke one could swear he was telling the truth. In fact, I do believe that in his mind, he was admitting the truth. And what is that truth? That he was “insensitive,” that he is sorry for what he said and that he now admits that Hamas, Hezb’allah and some factions of the Muslim Brotherhood are terrorists.

We should definitely believe him at these words, as they have no real meaning. Imam Feisal does not say he disagrees with the comments he had made, only that he is sorry he made them. He had let the cat out of the bag and now he sees how foolish that was in his new role in American-Muslim affairs.

All of this apologizing softened the atmosphere so the Imam could use the opportunity to try to bring the American people into a unity with “moderate” Muslims and focus on fighting extremists of all faiths…and to sell his new book ‘Moving the Mountain.’ On the surface, this sounds like a good plan. After all, having this Imam on our side against terrorists should be

What we do not hear him talk about is how the ideology of Islam, its political, legal and social values, is cleverly entering into America’s financial, judicial, governmental, educational and social systems. We do not hear the Imam talk about American cities that are being colonized by Muslim immigrants who are running away from terrible conditions and looking for a better life than they have in any Muslim country today, bringing with them the hopes for Sharia law in the future of America. Imam Feisal admits that Muslims “must abide by the law of the land.” Therefore the struggle for Sharia in America is critical to the well-being of its Qur’an believers.